Poll question: Why did Dean lose? Poll for those who did not vote for him.

I thought it would be good to have some objective choices. Most of the people here did not vote for Dean. It would be good to know why those people did not vote for him. I can only have ten choices. So if there are additional reasons, note them below.

I liked what Dean was saying, for the most part, but I didn't like his temperament--it reminded me of Bush! I sensed a bit of cockiness, short-temperedness, that I didn't think was good in a president.

Kerry was always on message, cool and in control in the primary debates.

He was promoted and covered constantly before Iowa. He was declared the front-runner by the corporate media before a single person had cast a vote. oops...they got that one wrong. The media turned on Dean after he lost Iowa, but the truth is that Dean got a huge amount of support and name recognition resulting from months of positive news coverage. Dean was the choice of the corporate media, and I'm glad Iowa voters made their own decision about who the real front-runner was.

54. A lot of people switched to Dennis when they looked at the issues.

Much of Dean's early support came from people thinking he was from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, like Wellstone and Kucinich. When they found that Dean shared more conservative than liberal values, the idealists switched to Kucinich and those who wanted someone more liberal than Dean along with someone who they believed could get publicity went with Kerry.

However sometimes you walk into the ice cream store with enough money for just one scoop, though several flavors are appealing. None of our candidates were perfect, though for me Clark came closest, which is why I backed him, but I can admit that Clark would have made an even better candidate if he had more experience at being one under his belt prior to running last time.

So we could do a poll like this for all of our last batch of candidates, and people will never agree because we see them differently and because there are always "wild card" factors like the media's coverage which we may not all view the same either.

Dean was always in my top three candidates. I went back and forth between him and Kerry for second place behind Clark. I liked Dean's fire, I liked his clarity about the Iraq mistake. I liked his following though I got into online "fights" with some. I thought Kerry had, you know, a little more of that gravitas thing. He had a military record and he had specialized in foreign affairs in the Senate. I thought that would help Kerry in the General Election this time around with War and Terror on people's minds. On edit I will add that I also respected Kerry's early leadership in the anti Viet Nam war movement and hoped Kerry would draw from that well of moral convictions if he became President.

With the "wisdom" of hindsight I now would clearly rank Dean as my second choice from last year's field, I was immediately uncomfortable with the way Kerry ran his nominating Convention and it wasn't until late September that I thought he hit his stride. That was too late. Dean would have been aggressive earlier in my opinion. Clark however was and still is my clear first choice.

and I voted for Kerry, partly 'cause by the time the vote got to Jersey, it was pretty much locked. Now, I choose "all of the above" but I really should have voted for the NAFTA and WTO. I've been against that from the very beginning.

It wasn't about not liking Dean, it was about preferring someone else, if your asking about why I didn't support him. As far as voting goes, if we had had a primary and all the candidates had been listed on the ballot, I would have voted for Clark. Again, not because I don't like Dean, but because I prefer Clark. As it was, our state had a caucus and it was a choice between Kerry and Kucinich, with the knowledge that Kerry already had the nomination wrapped up. Given that situation, I actually voted for Kucinich.

I guess a handful of people in my state actually did vote for Dean, but not enough for him to win any delegates so it would have been kind of pointless, whereas we ended up winning 15 delegates for Kucinich. Besides, by that point, I preferred Kucinich to Dean.

I also supported him because I knew that Bush would run the type of campaign that he did.

I knew he would frame the election about security & terrorism & Iraq, therefore I thought Clark was the best equipped to neutralize that issue. I didn't have the same confidence in the other candidates to be able to play on that field.

I still don't believe that Dems, as a group understand that the country perceives them as weak on security, & considering this was the first Presidential election after 9/11, I knew the Dems would be vulnerable.

When Kerry was nominated, I hoped he could be effective on these issues, but I knew he didn't get it when he chose Edwards as Veep.That told me he wanted to run a happy, positive campaign, based on domestic issues. He wasn't ready for the war that was ahead.

Looking back, Dean would have been a better fighter than Kerry, but I still think he would have had problems, being stereotyped as a New England Liberal & not having FP experience.

I liked Dean's combativeness and the thought that if we were going to lose at least we'd go down swinging. I was concerned about his lack of experience in foreign policy and his lack of experience in media campeigning.

I'd followed Kerry since the Iran Contra days and had always had him on my list of people I would like to see run for President. I thought he had the best combination of experience and gravitas. I was concerned about his rather lackadaisical campeign style and his lack of fire.

Being a contrarian I would have voted for Kerry had I voted in the Iowa caucuses and for Dean in the New Hampshire primary and later. I guess Dean's post scream damage control worked on me and I also thought he was being screwed all around. Since I live in New Jersey by the time the campeign got to me it was just Kerry, Kucinich and Sharpton, I felt it was better to give Kerry a big margin than to register a protest vote for Kucinich with whom I agree on just about every issue.

What a difference a year makes. I did not fully trust Clark back during the primaries. Having watched him for about a year now, I've come to appreciate the General. I've likewise come to appreciate that Dean's lack of foreign policy experience is more than made up by his savvy--he has a habit of being right. I think that my concerns about Kerry's lack of fire were sadly borne out by the campeign.

for those who indicated the reason was the "scream" or Dean was perceived as "unelectible".

Don't you think the media, the Right and the Right-leaning corporate Democrats will see to it that any viable challenger is crucified or tagged an "unelectible"?

Why allow them to define the race based on their deliberate manipulation to steer conventional perception?

Have you witnessed a more disconnected politician than Kerry? He was portrayed as most electible because he had that elitist Senatorial dignity as his image---except that Bush was deemed more electible because he was someone you could have a beer with. Kerry was removed from the reality of most people's lives. Kerry ran on his war hero status(which was compromised by his anti-war protesting) while we were becoming deeper in the quagmire of Iraq. It was as if it was totally disconnected with reality--that showing up Bush as a chickenhawk or AWOL was all that counted. That and ABB.

Democrats have to stand for and run on something more than we're-not-as-bad-as-them.

I have some ambivalent feelings about Dean's focus on the young--Not that it isn't admirable to engage the young, but not at the expense of seniors and other interest groups who might view it as some pop culture event. There were many older Dean supporters who were poorly represented by the campaign.

As for your comments about the media's participation in destroying Dean, why then do so many claim that as the reason they wouldn't consider Dean? Essentially, the scream was created out of thin air and replayed thousands of times at the onset of the primaries, whereas Bush commits gaffes on any given day and it never gets covered.

Bush--someone you can have a beer with? Kerry the tall dignified Senator from the upper crust?

What exactly is "presidential" unless someone is defining what it is and isn't?

The whole thing was little more than the same crap they pulled at the Wellstone memorial?

But you remind me, aside from Kerry's big pow-wow with all the media top brass just before Iowa, look and see where his citizen soldier funding went--Max Cleland and Iowa politicians. Already setting up Iowa and Vislack suddenly became a player. Who the hell is Vislack?

The very idea that a person is one way for 50 years and then suddenly sees the light, sorry, no sale. Kucinich was too far left to ever have a chance, but at least he is who he is. Just as Kerry is who he is. And I'll let it go at that.

I suppose it's safe to say that MOST people here didn't vote for Dean but I think it's a close number. Lot's of Dean folks here.

I give Dean a lot of credit for energizing the Party and bringing a bunch of new people into political action.

The Dean people were always "the most gung-ho in any group"The problem ,in my view was that they didn't have any real experience so their effort didn't translate into success.

I was a Dean supporter until Iowa and it wasn't the scream that put me off. What sent me to the Kerry group was the fact that Dean didn't finish first or second and was far back in third. I realized that the Dean organization didn't have the skill to succeed.

media, chose Kerry because he could be relied on to support the corporate effort and the oil wars.

Many Democrats are just as susceptible to the RW spin machine as Republicans are. The machine tells them Dean is bad and they believe it. The machine tells them Kerry ran a bad campaign and they believe it. The machine tells them Gore ran a bad campaign and they believe it.

I prefered Clark, however I do think Dean would have also made an electable candidate. He was honest, but he was also quick to anger so it seemed. I think any candidate would have been brought down by the "liberal media" In hindsight I think that Rove was more afraid of Dean than he ultimately was of Kerry. As hard as I worked for Kery after Clark through his support to him, I think Dean would have put up a hell of a fight, he ultimately would have been as electable as any other candidate.

The corporate media gave Dean the most news coverage and the most positive coverage before Iowa. He was declared the front runner as soon as they could say it with a strait face, months before a single vote had been cast. Tim Russert was on Meet the Press every Sunday calling him the only anti-war candidate, which much of the media repeated. Why didn't they want people to know about other anti-war candidates. Maybe because Dean was more corporate friendly than they were?

Dean's top contributor during the early primary season was employees of media giant AOL Time Warner. That should tell you something about who the corporate media supported. They only turned on Dean after he lost Iowa.

Dean was the DREAM CHOICE for Rove and the Idiot in Chief!! He would have been CRUSHED in the general election. At least Senator Kerry made it close and almost pulled it off...And after 9-11, we shouldn't have even been in the game.

Dean? An Anti-War candidate at a time when the American people were still reeling from 9-11? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

HELLO REALITY!! HOW ABOUT MAKING A HOUSE CALL HERE????

All you Deniacs just refuse to accept the simple fact that Govenor Dean wasn't ready for Prime Time, melted-down and lost a THIRTY FREAKING POINT LEAD IN THE POLLS!!!!

The "Media" LOVED DEAN!!! They all proclaimed him the run-away winner LONG before the primary in Iowa...LONG before Dean and his immature candidacy BLEW IT!!!

Please stop throwing that excuse around? The ONLY place it plays is here...Your echo chamber. It doesn't play in the real world!!

Look...

I LOVE the man! I fully support Govenor Dean as head of the DNC. His passion, vision and leadership is sorely needed at this time. But he is simply NOT "Presidential". He's NOT a good candidate. He can't keep his mouth shut when he needs too. He's TOO passionate. Senator Kerry is a Statesman. Dean is a Firebrand! And given the tools of the DNC, given talking points, given time before he's able to respond, Dean will CRUSH the repukes as head of the DNC.

Run with THAT! Not all your kooky conspiracy theories that deny simple facts and history!!!

asked Dean about Vietnam and how his back prevented him from being drafted... then Dean supposedly went off on a big skiing holiday. Dean was less than convincing when answering that question, and it made him look bad, even if everything was completely on the up-and-up (which I believe it was).

At the time, I mentioned that on a thread dealing with the interview, and was attacked by several hardcore Dean supporters whose argument could be summed up as, "Dean is perfect, there is no room for improvement, and nobody gives a shit what you think."

I liked (and still like) Howard Dean, but had a real tough time with a lot of his supporters. When it was all said and done, I knew that if (some of, not all of) his supporters were so belligerent that they turned ME off when I was VERY open to a Dean candidacy, they would really have troubles with people who were more on the fence. In the end, I believed that they would turn off more voters than they would gain. Dean himself did not lose my vote... his supporters lost it for him.

Dean, Dean, Dean, and his adoring admirers. Judging from the media stories, though, I couldn't tell much of what Dean stood for, other than that he had an emphatic and rousing speaking style and attracted a lot of youth.

Having just moved halfway across the country, I resolved that I would try to go hear each of the presidential candidates as they showed up in the Twin Cities.

The first one to hold a rally that was open to the general public was Kucinich, in August 2003. By the end of his speech, I was in tears, because I had been waiting literally for twenty years for someone to say those things. I got involved with the Kucinich campaign and stayed with it till the March caucuses.

I would have gone to rallies for the other candidates, to see what vibes I got from them in person, but frankly, no one else held rallies that were open to the general public or to small contributors for several months, at least not any that I heard of in time to attend.

I was in Iowa the weekend before the caucuses, going door to door for Kucinich, and I expected Dean to win. His were the only other canvassers we ran into. Also, all the news media were talking about how Dean was going to win Iowa for sure. The only indication I saw that perhaps the media were missing clues was that there were a lot more Edwards signs than I had expected.

I was astounded when Kerry won Iowa and Dean came in third. (And yes, the infamous "scream" hype came after he had placed lower than expected in Iowa.)

In retrospect, I wonder if he wasn't done in by the perception, a perception that damaged McGovern back in 1972, that his was, as the media back then said, a "children's crusade." Iowa has a higher-than-average proportion of elderly residents, and their reaction to the young Dean volunteers may have been, "Harumph, young whippersnappers. What do they know?"

Kerry has been around a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if the older voters in Iowa thought that he had paid his dues, that he was qualified to be president, and that it was his turn.

1.) A perceived lack of credibility on issues of national security. Note that I said "perceived", since his actual policy paper, written by former Clinton aide Ivo Daalder, actually has a lot of good points.

2.) The Deaniacs. Yes, the Deaniacs. Most Dean volunteers were decent, committed, and dedicated people, who were in it for all the right reasons. However, there was a subset that came across as sanctimonious, self-righteous pricks. They would show up at other candidates events and be disruptive, they would write vicious letters to the editor trashing Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, et al, and would generally act in a truly annoying manner. In places like NH and IA, this sort of thing can make a huge difference in how a candidate is perceived by the electorate.

very little/no foreign policy experience, Deaniacs were irritating, got sick of hearing about him, not really liberal, hyped up too much by the press, a terrible performance on Meet The Press June 2003 (my opinion)and no one I knew liked him, including myself.

52. His tax plan was the number one reason that I didn't vote for him.

It didn't bother me personally, but I knew there was absolutely no way that he would be able to run on an economic plan that included raising everybody's taxes, no matter what. The right-wing machine would have destroyed him easily, just by forcing him to explain himself over and over again, much as they did to Kerry.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.